Portraying Political Ideas of National Revolutionaries: A Case Study of Pandurang Mahadev Bapat

Abstract

The term ‘revolutionary’ has a unique connotation in India’s struggle for national liberation. It refers to those freedom fighters who scrupulously believed in the efficacy of armed resistance to overthrow British rule in India and justified employing extremist techniques to achieve the objective. Consequently, national revolutionism creates a distinct stream of thinking in the Indian national movement from both the moderate and extremist currents in the movement. While there is no end to the literature on both moderate and extremist thinking in British India, the political philosophy of the revolutionaries has not been satisfactorily addressed by academia in a meaningful manner. While there are a few notable exceptions, social scientists in India have generally ignored the revolutionary political ideas because of the foundation of British authority over Indian land; the nation’s political development began to follow a pattern identical to the Western development model. Following that, some extensive Western influences were seen in education, economy, government organisation and administration, significantly impacting the intellectual development of the time.

Moreover, the ideas of revolutionaries were, for the most part, immediate intellectual responses to the political challenges and crises that existed at the time of their birth. However, some of these topics were significant, such as formulating a critique of British imperialism, defining the national identity, reorganising Indian society and developing plans for national liberation. As a result, it will be necessary to examine and evaluate the political views of these revolutionaries in the context of the concerns and problems with which they were confronted at the time. This research explores and explains Bapat’s political thought and situates him in Maharashtra’s revolutionary and Hindu political traditions. Lastly, in the first instance, this research proposes a brief look at the development of Bapat’s political career, which played a vital role in shaping his political ideas. Then, it explores the significant politics of colonial and post-colonial times.

Introduction

The present scenario for political thought in modern India is especially relevant to studying national revolutionaries’ ideas ¹ . Eventually, one of the characteristic features of ‘the Indian national movement during the latter half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century was the recurrences of the armed rebellion and revolutionary conspiracies aimed at overthrowing British rule in India’. ² The story of the Indian national movement begins virtually with India’s armed resistance to British rule. The resistance took different forms at different stages of British expansion, and the attempt and violent resistance were conspicuous by its frequent recurrence throughout India’s struggle for freedom. Thus, ‘the revolutionary movement in India was as much a part of India’s struggle for nation’s liberation as the other contemporary movements like that of the Moderates, Extremists, Gandhian or Socialists which had a considerable bearing on modern Indian political thinking’. ³ Unfortunately, modern Indian political thought researchers have not paid adequate attention to this part of the national movement.

More importantly, the history of the Indian national movement needs effective speculation free from academic and literary bias. The Britishers and their sponsored studies majorly documented the history with many uncounted distorted arguments that eventually became the historical facts and evidence for today’s historians, writers and authors, which is quite unfortunate for the (real) history of the freedom movement. Somehow, this situation forced to re-evaluate the existing thoughts and arguments for a better and clearer understanding of history. However, even the revaluation process cannot counter those distorted treatments because they had already established their process of writing history, and still, we are following the same even in the twenty-first century, unconditionally. The Indians today need the writings and archives that the Britishers wrote, and without substantiating it, the Indians use them as a significant part of their primary sources or sometimes the entire foundation of their newly designed research. It is a matter of fact that

the role of history in providing an ideological-cultural framework for national unity and growth is important, for in many of these countries, the concept of a nation has not grown out of a long historical process by which people belonging to different race, religion, and regions have emotionally welded together. ⁴

The problems regarding the nature of the discipline of history, the nature of historical fact and historical knowledge, and the problems of methodology, causation and objectivity are of worldwide significance and have to be treated as such.

Apparently, the present assumption among historians during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the political and economic domination of large segments of the world by some powers or the system of Western colonialism was something ordained by history is no longer tenable; seemingly, it has been abandoned. However, ‘the moral and intellectual bases and biases of the belief in Western superiority have continued’. ⁵ Although the modern tradition of historiography in India can often be traced back to the establishment of British rule, it is important to realise that ‘India has its indigenous knowledge tradition or Gyan parampara of historiography, often called the itihas-purana tradition.’ ⁶ Meanwhile, the growth of the modern tradition of historiography in India can be divided into three broad categories firstly, the initial stage extending up to the end of the nineteenth century, the second stage extending up to the end of the Second World War and the attainment of the Indian independence and the last stage starting thereafter, which is undoubtedly the post-independence scenario. The growth of the nationalist movement in the last quarter of the nineteenth century gave a definite fillip to the writing of Indian history by the Macyulaties (those Indian historians still following the Orientalist’s writing sheet). On the other hand, many others in ‘the process of writing history reacted against many of the simple attitudes of the British historians and tried to create a sense of pride in India by dwelling upon the uniqueness and antiquity of the Indian culture and its independent identity’. ⁷

The tradition of nationalist history writing in India and its implications are well-known. It aimed to create a sense of pride in India’s past to compensate for the low esteem in which the colonial rulers held the country and its culture. Eventually, it tried to justify India’s claim for freedom by arguing that the wherewithals of the qualities or institutions considered desirable, for example, democracy, individualism and national unity, had existed in the country before the arrival of the British, and any weakening was in large measure due to the influence of the British. Undoubtedly, the uncritical and somewhat romantic view of history had obviously to yield once India became free. Still, the change has been accompanied by a serious twist in the attitude to history in the West. The nineteenth-century view of history was obviously to justify and rationalise the European domination of the world by two significant points (i) by emphasising certain intrinsic superior qualities of the West, that is, rationalism, individualism, spirit of enterprise and so on, and (ii) the lack of these superior qualities by the black, brown or somewhat yellow races. With decolonisation following the Second World War and the growth of new centres of power outside Europe, the nineteenth-century view of history could no longer be maintained. However, this nineteenth-century view of locating history still greatly impacts the modern and post-modern tradition of writing and the entire process of (re)writing history. There is an imperative need to read the history of the nineteenth century and, above all, to understand the process of writing history, whether it was written with an unbiased mind or with some clandestine thoughts. Thus, to some extent, ‘history is no longer seen as representing a unilinear line of development, progress, or whatever word one likes to use for progression’. ⁸ The movement of history is much more complex, needing a combination of macro and micro studies and the insight provided by diverse disciplines. ⁹

The renaissance in India ‘in the 19th century and the following growth of the Indian national movement are strongly associated with the beginning and progression of modern Indian political thought.’ ¹⁰ This is because the two events coincided in India. Compared to the study of the national-revolutionary movement in India, the relative difference in the attitudes of students of modern Indian thinking towards the connected struggles that are a part of the Indian national movement is considerably more noticeable. Although many academics such as K. P. Karunakaran, SankarGhose and A. Appadorai acknowledged the existence of the revolutionary movement in India as a separate stream within the Indian national movement, none of them was able to explain the ideology of the revolutionary movement in a manner that was considered to be satisfactory. They were more interested in discussing the extreme phenomena in terms of its techniques and objectives than the philosophy that underpinned it. Thus, in his Introduction to Documents on Political Thought in India, Volume I, Appadorai has just made a passing observation about the revolutionary phenomenon in the following way where he argued that ‘the objective of the revolutionary movement (though primarily in Bengal and Punjab) was to overthrow the British government by force; secrecy was its essence, and besides, the revolutionaries were interested in actions, and not in theory’. ¹¹ The complex interaction of historical, political and social factors shaped revolution theory in India’s nationalistic movement. The intellectual climate and sociocultural landscape of India shaped revolutionary thought. India’s nationalistic revolution’s theoretical foundations must be understood in the historical context that fuelled independence. Indians were deeply dissatisfied with the British East India Company and later British Crown colonialism. Economic exploitation, cultural subjugation and political rights denial inspired Indians to change their society. In the Indian nationalistic movement, revolution is a complex political, ideological and sociocultural concept. Moderate to radical ideologies, Swaraj and revolutionary figures drove India’s independence. Current discussions on nationalism, self-determination, justice and equality draw from the rich tapestry of theoretical underpinnings.

Many reasons compel this study to consider initiating the research process about the political views of the national revolutionaries in India. To begin with,

the political thought of revolutionaries is just as much of a significant and separate topic of political research as the political thought of moderates and extremists. This is the case in both the first and second instances. There are many studies on the moderate and extreme thought in British Indian politics; nevertheless, there are comparatively few works on the political philosophy of the revolutionaries. ¹²

A few straightforward explanations can explain this paucity of academic research on the revolutionaries. The vast majority of revolutionary literature was either obliterated by ‘the revolutionaries themselves (out of fear that their intentions would be revealed to their foes), or it was suppressed by the British government as part of their repressive policies.’ ¹³ Because of this, academics were unable to start projects

on the works of revolutionaries because British statesmen and officials labelled them as terrorists or anarchists in the negative sense of the term. This also contributed to the widespread perception that revolutionaries lacked any kind of thought or direction in their works, which contributed to the general impression that revolutionaries were devoid of such things.’ ¹⁴

Because throughout the past few years ‘the libraries have been swamped with information referring to the acts of the revolutionaries, there is almost no room left today to excuse the disdain that was shown toward these individuals’. ¹⁵ In addition to the autobiographies, biographies, memoirs and reminiscences of the revolutionaries, the extensive research work carried out ‘in this field of enquiry primarily by historians and archivists hardly leaves any room to complain about a lack of source material on the national revolutionary movement’. ¹⁶

The literature on revolutionaries shows that revolution was almost ubiquitous in the Indian national movement. It also disproved the idea that India gained independence peacefully. History shows that the Indian national movement’s revolutionary movement was long-lasting. From 1857 to 1947, when India gained independence, the revolutionary spirit was alive, and revolutionary violence recurred in various forms, including terrorism and armed revolts. The revolutionary movement did not spread to all Indian provinces.

Post-war political life, both national and international, was marked by terrorism. British officials called Indian revolutionaries who used terrorism to attain their goals ‘bad terrorists’. Were they terrorists or revolutionary terrorists? Savarkar clearly maintained that the revolutionaries were not terrorists. He stated that the Revolutionary Party was not anarchist and used terrorism as a tool. The Revolutionary Party believed more than any other group that by killing a few British officials several years earlier through terrorism, the British would not have freed India from imperial rule. The revolutionaries knew British strength. Thus, calling the revolutionary a ‘Bomb Thrower’ is inaccurate. Savarkar clearly intended to distinguish terrorists from revolutionaries. He saw revolutionaries as more than terrorists.

A qualitative difference exists between terrorism and revolutionary terrorism, as confirmed by the abundant literature on terrorism. Paul Wilkinson, who is widely recognised as an authority on the subject of terrorism, had previously defined ‘revolutionary terrorism as being distinct from terrorism in general’. ¹⁷ Revolutionary terrorism is always ‘a group phenomenon, justified by some revolutionary ideology or program, led by leaders who can mobilize people for terrorism, and recreated because the revolutionary movement must participate in the political system and develop its own policy-making body and behaviour’. ¹⁸ The motivations behind revolutionary terrorism in colonial India were rooted in a shared desire for independence but differed in their ideological underpinnings. Revolutionary terrorists sought to establish a new sociopolitical order, often influenced by radical ideologies such as socialism and anarchism. Their objectives extended beyond national liberation to encompass the creation of a more egalitarian and just society. The revolutionary terrorism and terrorism in colonial India were distinct yet interconnected phenomena during the struggle for independence. The former, marked by clandestine organisations and violent tactics, sought to radically transform society. The latter, characterised by mass movements and non-violent resistance, aimed at achieving political independence through the power of the people. Understanding the differences between these two approaches is essential for a comprehensive analysis of the complex and multifaceted history of India’s fight against colonial rule. Thus, revolutionary terrorism is different from ordinary terrorism.

Pandurang Mahadev Bapat, also known as Senapati, had reservations about ‘the ideologies above, but he seemed to try to integrate them with his Hindu faith and create a more liberal Hindi consciousness’. ¹⁹ Not only did Bapat combine his revolutionary spirit with that of Gandhi’s by means of ‘the proclamation of the theory of Shuddha Satyagraha (Pure Satyagraha) and Prana-Yadnya (self-killing)’, but he also made a contribution to the theories of political resistance, which are especially important in a democratic political system. ²⁰ In other words, Bapat combined his revolutionism with Gandhism. One more thing that set Bapat apart from ‘the other revolutionaries were the odd way in which he approached the Hindu–Muslim relations that existed in India’. ²¹ Therefore, this research has attempted to investigate and explain ‘the most important aspects of Bapat’s political thought’, as well as compare and contrast him with the revolutionary tradition of the area and modern Maharashtra’s political thinking. ²²

Consequently, he was one of the ‘few revolutionaries who continued their political work after India attained its independence’. ²³ Most importantly, he wanted to ‘use politics as a means of assisting people all over the world. We can infer his political views from his behaviour and writings’. ²⁴ In addition, if we do not have a complete picture of his political career in our heads, it will be quite challenging for us to make any sense of what he has said. As a result, the study recommends that there is an imperative need to have a cursory look at the progression of Bapat’s political career, which in and of itself played ‘a significant part in the formation of his political ideas, and then move on to a discussion of his political ideals’. ²⁵

Bapat’s Political Career and the Revolutionary Movement

Bapat was born in 1880 to a Chitpavan Brahmin family in Parner, Ahmednagar, Bombay Presidency. ²⁶ He studied English at the New English School in Pune in the late nineteenth century. For as long as anybody can remember,

the city of Pune has been a hotbed for various forms of nationalist activism. Riots between Hindus and Muslims, atrocities committed during the plague, the murder of Lord Rand, and national holidays such as Shiv-Jayanti and Ganesh Festival all acted as routes of political communication and agencies of political socialization. ²⁷

Bapat was exonerated and became a nationalist because he was influenced by his surroundings. Historians persuaded this ‘young nationalist’ to become a revolutionary. Thus, his political career began with extreme results of the revolutionary movements and intense nationalist politics. ²⁸

Due to the critical and controversial nature of Bapat’s speech on

the subject of British rule in India that he delivered in front of the British audience described earlier, he was disqualified from receiving his scholarship. This must have been a devastating blow to freedom-loving Bapat, who later became more involved in the anti-British campaign and activities that were taking place in the India House in London. ²⁹

Despite Savarkar’s efforts ‘to recruit more Indian students to Abhinav Bharat, Bapat never joined the movement despite their close relationship and shared views on armed revolution against alien rule’. ³⁰

While doing all this, Bapat’s criticism of the British government’s misrule in India became more violent. In his 1906 pamphlet, ‘What shall our Congress do?’ Bapat urged Congress leaders to abandon petitions and prayers for agitational politics. In 1907, he gave a paper at Edinburgh titled ‘India in the year 2007’, explaining his philosophy of killing and advocating violence for justice. He says, ‘To secure and preserve high ideals, human killing is perfectly justified.’ ³¹ In 1907, in response to the deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai, Bapat claimed that he intended to carry out an assassination of Lord Morley. However, Savarkar convinced him not to go through with it. Consequently, while Bapat was in London, he reinvented himself as a Pucca Krantikari (real revolutionary). ³² After successfully acquiring the knowledge necessary to construct bombs, Bapat travelled back to India in 1908 armed with his own Bomb manual and two revolvers. His manual on how

to make bombs was extremely helpful to other revolutionaries all around the country. Copies of the manual were sent about covertly in various regions of India at the time when there was a flourishing of revolutionary centres there. On top of that, he got in touch with Bengal’s revolutionary leaders like Hemachandra Das, Upen Banerjee, and others like Barindra Ghose. ³³

The Bengal revolutionaries were hard at work plotting the detonation of a bomb and the assassination of high-ranking officials. He clearly disapproved of these solitary acts of revenge and encouraged moderation. He states, ‘…the revolutionaries need not attempt the intermittent actions but rather build balanced thoughts within their working styles across the nation and ignite the struggle against them collectively’. ³⁴

After many failed attempts by the Bengal revolutionaries, Bapat decided to share his thoughts through his writings. At this time, he emerged as ‘a more radical figure where he suggested a thought to self-killing (i.e., PranYadna) as a policy of political resistance’. ³⁵ Bapat’s writings are an example of his radicalism. Bapat wrote that ‘we must collect at least 30,000 freedom-loving people and out of those, 15000 should self-destruct in Bombay’, ³⁶ saying they were tired of slavery and wanted to save them by sacrificing their lives collectively’. ³⁷ A statement to that effect should be issued by freedom-lovers to express their desire for freedom to world leaders. After seeing the world’s reaction to self-inflicted death, the rest should decide their programme. ³⁸

After Mulshi Satyagraha, Bapat developed the ‘Shuddha-Satyagraha theory, which changed his political thinking. In a Gandhian manner, he highlighted the significance of moral cause of the political conflict and criticised Anasākti (Detacliment) and Ahimsā (Non-Violence) for their exclusivity’. ³⁹ The violence in Suddha Satyagraha demonstrated Bapat’s distinct perspective and enriched Gandhian Satyagraha. Bapat passionately spearheaded

Mulshi Satyagraha with his political beliefs. Bapat apparently understands class strife. The Mulshi experience showed him peasant suffering. For him, the unended pain and sorrow over the workers was the great matter of concern. To promote Tata Company’s Tamhini Valley dam project, he again linked colonial overlords to Mulshi’s impoverished and uprooted farmers. ⁴⁰

The Poona collector stated that peasants would lose their land during dam construction. However, the electricity from such dams would boost Bombay’s industries, creating a constant labour shortage’. ⁴¹ The deprived peasants would, of course, be ‘de-recruited as industrial labourers’. ⁴² This phenomenon rapidly comprehended ‘the anti- peasant connotation of such a development programme shortly after it occurred. This occurrence occurred shortly after the phenomenon’. ⁴³ Bapat came to the conclusion that ‘the best way to protect the interests of the peasant class was to take the initiative in establishing the Satyagraha against the dam’. ⁴⁴ The Mulshi experience raised Bapat’s political awareness and thinking. Bapat considered Mulshi-Satyagraha nationalist and anti-imperialist. ⁴⁵

Thus, one of Bapat’s political career highlights is his passion for constructive work, which stems from his humanitarian outlook on existence instead of Gandhi’s constructive politics. However, the latter may have boosted Bapat’s positivity. He saw in 1908 how India was unspeakably dirty inside and out and needed the ‘gospel of the broom’. ⁴⁶ Besides his confrontational politics, Bapat also ran constructive programmes, which showed his public service perspective on politics. As Y. D. Phadke notes, Bapat was an impartial politician who evaluated each subject on its own merits, regardless of party affiliation. The post-Mulshi political career of Bapat emphasises his independence. In 1939, Bapat joined the Hyderabad Satyagraha, became the Maharashtra branch president of Forward Block, and participated in Goa’s liberation movement and Samyukta Maharashtra Movement, demonstrating his independent spirit. When studying Bapat’s political ideas, it is essential to understand his autonomous nature, which shaped his political views. To understand his political views, it is essential to consider his metaphysical worldview and political career. When explaining Bapat’s political perspective, one must notice his constructive and sound qualities since his service-mindedness is often evident.

The Socio-philosophical Foundation of Bapat’s Political Thought

Bapat was a man who understood life from a metaphysical perspective. Not like Aurobindo, he developed a philosophical system in his Gita commentary ⁴⁷ (in Geeta Hriday), ‘Chaitanya Gatha’, and in his many poems and correspondence, Bapat reflects his philosophical stance that underpinned his political discerning and actions. ⁴⁸ Bapat professes Advaita Vedanta. He calls his politics ‘Advaita Politics’ in ‘What does he mean by Advaita Vedanta?’ In an interview, he defined the term as follows. He says, ‘I believe that Brahma alone exists. The same Brahmā manifests itself by God (Iswar) and every being (Jiva). So, to convert every living entity (Jiva) into a perfect being (Shiva) is the function of this Brahma.’ ⁴⁹ Accordingly, every ordinary being is bound to raise himself to the ultimate perfection, whether he is a thief or an evildoer. As a result, he would manifest himself as Dnyaneshwar, the man who has connected himself with the fullness of the universe (Viswa) and announced that the entire cosmos is my dwelling place. ⁵⁰

There are a substantial number of his writings that have articulated ideas that are philosophical and sociocultural in nature. He continues to believe that ‘Brahma is the ultimate and singular truth, the other truths are partial manifestations of it, and the world is the chaos of all these partial truths.’ ⁵¹ The fight is between partial truths, negating one at the expense of another. Because of different positions (Bhoomika Bhed), people talk about different truths (Satya Bhed) and create the duality of ‘truth and untruth’. ⁵² Bapat believes the world exists simply because of truth and lies, which are one. However, not everyone realises this, so they keep battling for their own reality and branding the other ‘untrue’. Thus, every true and fierce conflict seeks to remove evil and safeguard the good. In other terms, ‘the essence of life is to fit’, meaning eradicate evildoers and defend the truth. Bapat trusts everyone despite their differences of opinion because of this core position. ⁵³

After rigorous study, Bapat translated most of Aurobindo’s works into Marathi. Bapat was influenced by Aurobindo’s view of evolution as spiritual development. Though Bapat views this universe as a fantasy of Brahma represented in the ‘chaos of partial truths’, he writes in one of his poems that ‘this drama or fiction (Natakā) has got its own norms and it takes place accordingly’. ⁵⁴ Further, he continues, ‘Truth plays the game of growth (sat-roop) in this world. This game of spirit evolution (chit-vikas) is played by Spirit.’ ⁵⁵

Bapat rejects materialism and says ‘Some believe nature (Srushti) is a self-acting system. This doesn’t mollify the reason because no machine can act alone? Although someone can do it.’ ⁵⁶ For him, God himself is the chief operator of this global machine. However, this does not make him scorn ‘individuals who honestly believe in the materialist Interpretation of the universe or follow the agnostic line of thought’. ⁵⁷ Therefore, according to Bapat,

The human people who live in the universe are the active agents of God, in contrast to the notion that they are merely puppets in the sense that the term is used to describe determinism. The universe is the manifestation of Spirit, and the human people who live in it are the active agents of God. Taking this viewpoint into consideration, Bapat considers his life to be a sacred sacrifice that he is obligated to present to God. As a result of this, he treats every living thing as if it were a component of the divine, and as a result, he affords them equal opportunity. ⁵⁸

This leads him to believe that every human action is sacred if performed out of sincere concern for the welfare of mankind.

Bapat’s Shri Geeta Hriday is vital to comprehending his unique philosophical worldview. In his commentary on the Geeta, Bapat opposes the Sankhya position of the underlying cause of the world, and he restates his faith in the Advait Vedanta system he developed. It is common knowledge that

the Sankhya disapprove of the idea of a god and instead speak of ‘Prakrit’ and ‘Purusha’ as the two distinct phenomena that exist in the world, with ‘Prakrit’ being the fundamental reason why the world exists. Samkhya says the ‘Purusha’ is eternal, all-pervasive, inactive, and detached (Avikari). This is because, as far as Samkhya’s is concerned, all worldly happenings fall primarily under the purview of the ‘Prakriti,’ with the ‘Purusha’ serving simply as a witness to these occurrences. ⁵⁹

Therefore, by recognising Purusha as God (Iswar) and assigning to him ‘Bapat is renewing his Vedantic faith and interpreting Geeta in the Advaita-Vedanta tradition as the origin of all things.’ ⁶⁰

Bapat’s Analysis of British Nerves in India

Bapat, like many other freedom fighters of his time, vehemently opposed the exploitative nature of British rule in India. His activism was deeply rooted in the conviction that the British had subjugated the Indian people and exploited the country’s resources for their own benefit. Bapat, a staunch follower of Mahatma Gandhi, believed in non-violent resistance and civil disobedience as powerful tools to challenge British imperialism. One of the critical aspects of Bapat’s critique of British rule lay in the economic exploitation faced by India under colonial governance. The British implemented policies that prioritised their economic interests, leading to the impoverishment of the Indian masses. The extraction of wealth from India, combined with discriminatory economic policies, resulted in widespread poverty and deprivation. In his speeches and writings, Bapat likely emphasised the economic injustices perpetuated by the British colonial administration.

Furthermore, Bapat would likely have criticised the racial and social discrimination inherent in British rule. The imposition of racial hierarchies and the blatant disregard for the cultural and social fabric of India fuelled resentment among the Indian population. Bapat, a vocal advocate for social justice, would have likely highlighted how British policies exacerbated existing social inequalities and discriminations. In addition to economic and social critiques, Bapat would likely have condemned the political repression imposed by the British colonial administration. The denial of political rights and representation to Indians, coupled with draconian laws, curtailed freedom of expression and dissent. Bapat, known for his fearless approach to challenging authority, would have likely decried the suppression of democratic values by the British rulers.

Bapat’s perception of British rule in India seems closest to that of extremists. He was critical of how the British educational programme encouraged a denationalising attitude. He showed how the British had distorted Indian history in schools and universities. Bapat asked the Indian student, ‘Was he not taught that India was in chaos before the benign British authority?’ ⁶¹ According to Bapat, this distortion of India’s history inhibited national sentiment and made Indians feel different. Nationalist extremists such as Tilak, Bipin Chandra, Aurobindo and Lala Lajpat Rai often claimed that India’s British-dominated educational system prevented Indians from discovering their national identity. Aurobindo expressed his displeasure with the circumstances in a letter he penned ‘… education in this country is being discussed due to its deliberate lack of resources and capacity, anti-national character, subordination to the government, and use of subordination to discourage patriotism and instil loyalty’. ⁶²

Bapat was particularly critical of how the British used India’s tremendous resources for profit. After attentively reading Naoroji’s work on Britishers in India, Bapat criticised British economic policy similarly. His criticism focused on Asquith’s Justification of the British Government’s Free Trade Policy. According to Bapat, ‘This policy harmed the economic development of India and contributed to the increased impoverishment of the nation as a whole.’ As a result, Bapat came to the conclusion that the ‘imperial and colonial nature of British rule’ ⁶³ was the primary factor that ‘contributed to the country of India’s decline and prevented it from reaching its full potential’. ⁶⁴ During the Mulshi Satyagraha, Bapat’s socialist background helped him link Indian capitalists and British rulers and lead the peasant uprising as a nationalist attack on British imperialism. Bapat called the peasant uprising a nationalist overthrow of British imperialism. Bapat believed British imperialism was Western imperialism because it hurt non-Western nations. So Bapat perceived British authority in India as Western imperialism. Thus, he saw the Indian anti-British nationalist movement as anti- imperialist. The fact that Bapat considered British dominance in India Western imperialism is notable. The British government’s ‘divide and rule’ strategy was imperialist, and he knew it. He contrasted

the British rule with the broad background of Western dominance over the rest of the world as a result of Western imperialism. Because of this, he was also able to recognize the phenomena of cultural dominance as a tactic utilized by colonization. In addition to this, he was able to determine the hierarchical nature of the British administration in India. ⁶⁵

He realised a connection between the British aristocracy and the developing industrial capitalists, which ultimately enhanced the British aristocracy’s hold on power and ensured its continued existence.

While Senapati Bapat might not have left behind specific treatises analysing British rule, his actions and speeches during the Indian independence movement indicate a comprehensive critique of colonial exploitation. His commitment to non-violent resistance, social justice and economic equality reflected a deep understanding of the multifaceted challenges posed by British rule in India. Senapati Bapat’s legacy is a testament to the indomitable spirit of those who fought for India’s independence, advocating for a free and just nation.

Prophetic Prediction for Future India

Bapat’s vision and prophetic prediction of the future of India make him a unique revolutionary of his time. Few revolutionaries have clearly envisioned India’s political future. While some had vague thoughts about independent India, most left it to future generations. This may be because they were preoccupied with freeing India and focused all their energy on it. This kept them from considering India’s future. Like Savarkar and Bapat, few knew what goals independent India would set, how she would achieve them and what principles she would embrace. These thoughts help us build their vision of future India, which embodies their philosophies and thinking. Bapat prefers ‘moderate socialism’, which is similar to democratic socialism. He insists India adopt democratic socialism. His ideal state combines Prajatantra (democracy) and Kashta-shahi (Rule of the toilers).

As a socialist, he fought capitalism’s exploitation, oppression, power concentration and imperialism. His anti-imperialist nationalist fight and Mulshi Satyagraha show this. Bapat rejected the core of capitalism, private property. Bapat writes in ‘Gav-Geeta’ that ‘property increase causes moral deterioration’. ⁶⁶ It kills motivation and causes lethargy. Private property should not exist. Bapat knew that the emerging India would follow the British capitalist model of production, widening the capitalist–labourer gap. Bapat believed workers should unite against capitalists to protect their interests. The urban-village poor contrast was another Bapat theme. Bapat believed capitalist production would widen the city–rural divide. Rural India will suffer as cities grow. Indian homogeneous growth would end. Bapat says in Gav Geeta that rural India has seven lakh villages. Bapat believes that if the gap between rural and urban India grows, rural and urban India will fight each other and disrupt social and political unity. According to Bapat, ‘The fundamental cause of all divisive forces in society is capitalism, and it must be tempered and checked, or it will dissolve the nation. Bapat calls capitalism the rule of selfishness (Swarth Shahi), from whom nobody benefits.’ ⁶⁷

Bapat writes and fights for democracy. Beyond periodic elections, adult franchises and constitutional civil liberties, his democracy was more. These are present. He meant more by democracy. Bapat’s writings show he recognised India’s pluralism. Bapat appreciates nature’s ‘plurality’ (Srushti). ‘Every country, region, and neighborhood has a role in humanity’s progress.’ ⁶⁸ We must respect the natural diversity of communities and provide them with the freedom to engage in evolution according to their ability. Every province is unique. Bapat recommends a federal system for India due to its pluralistic society. This federal state needs linguistic provinces. For him, linguistic states are not separatists. Bapat advocated the Samyukta Maharashtra campaign for a Marathi-speaking state.

Bapat was aware of the Hindu–Muslim issue in India. However, he approached the matter differently than other Hinduist revolutionaries, especially Savarkar. Bapat argued that most Indian politicians succumbed to colonial rule, which caused the communal conflict. Politicians and elites with vested interests cause community rifts and fights. Religious tolerance, not anti-communism, is the remedy to this community problem. His idea of Surajya in Gav Geeta is the most notable aspect of his vision of future India. Bapat thought Swarajya could not exist unless it was changed into Surajya, and the basis of this is Gramarajya. This recalls Gandhi’s ‘village swaraj’. Though his concept was influenced by Gandhian swaraj, his Grama-swarajya does not explain how the village-swarajya will relate to the state. His love for democracy is well acknowledged, and his advocacy of Grama-swarajya promotes popular initiative and self-reliance. Nevertheless, the issue is still present.

Bapat’s humanitarianism cannot be overlooked. Humanitarianism influenced his progressive ideas. Hindu humanitarianism is founded more ‘on philanthropic (Bhoot-daya) principles than on human dignity, which stems from the belief in inequality’. ⁶⁹ Recognising individuals as God’s elements (Ishwari-Aunsh) and treating them equally is one thing; seeing them as ‘equal human beings regardless of their “divinity” is another’. ⁷⁰ Hindu humanitarianism is based on the notion of ‘soul equality’ rather than ‘person equality’ as in liberal or socialist ideology. This justifies progressive causes such as removing untouchability and assisting the rural poor, but it does not make him a Marxist or socialist revolutionary. Bapat’s sympathy for untouchables, downtrodden castes and underprivileged people makes him progressive, but that is not his politics.

Concluding Observation

This conversation explored Bapat’s political philosophy and revolutionaries’ beliefs. The revolutionaries’ attacks were not indiscriminate, either. Revolutionaries never used terror as a common strategy to make political demands and oppose. After thoroughly examining the fundamental elements of Bapat’s political ideology. This research indicates that Bapat is a proponent of democratic socialism, which simultaneously emphasises the importance of liberty and equality. His egalitarian mindset’s origins can be attributed to two main factors: the impact of socialist ideologies and the influence of humanitarianism rooted in Advaita Vedanta. These two ideas seem to have shaped his politics. Gandhism inspired Bapat’s ideas on non-violence, Satyagraha, Grama-rajya and construction. Bapat’s response to Gandhian ideas led him to a Hinduist view of life and philosophy. Hindu tradition and perspective sometimes outweigh socialists in Bapat. His criticism of R. D. Karve (1882–1953), a rationalist and pioneer in birth control and sex education in India, his recognition of ‘the family as a revered social establishment that underpins society, and his unique view that it is a divine creation indicate a stronger alignment with Hinduism than socialism’. ⁷¹ Thus, his misgivings about ‘dialectical materialism as a way to explain social development suggest he is more Hindu than socialist. ⁷² What sets Bapat apart as a socialist revolutionary is his unwavering belief in violence as a divine power.

Hindu humanitarianism is based on the doctrine of ‘equality of souls’ rather than liberal or socialist ‘equality of individuals’. This justifies progressive causes such as ending untouchability and helping the rural poor, but it does not make one a Marxian or socialist revolutionary. However, Bapat does not approach politics in this manner, even though ‘he is regarded as progressive due to his concern for the untouchables, castes who are oppressed, and the underprivileged’. ⁷³ There is evidence of this in the fact that ‘Bapat maintained his silence on Ambedkar’s cause even though he had a deep affection for the untouchables. It is clear from this that he places a high priority on political issues.’ ⁷⁴ For this reason, we will refer to him as a progressive humanist within the Hindu faith. Thus, they, especially Bapat, are different from modern terrorising methods. The sacrifice of the revolutionaries, particularly Bapat, their heroism in defying the alien forces (i.e., the British Empire) and their dedication to the homeland were above suspicion. They will always command our respect. However, we should not underestimate their political limitations.